Share this story

The US Senate today voted to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, with all members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans voting in favor of net neutrality.

The Senate approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would simply undo the FCC's December 2017 vote to deregulate the broadband industry. If the CRA is approved by the House and signed by President Trump, Internet service providers would have to continue following rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Further Reading

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has scheduled his repeal to take effect on June 11. If Congress doesn't act, the net neutrality rules and the FCC's classification of ISPs as common carriers would be eliminated on that date.

Democrats face much longer odds in the House, where Republicans hold a 235-193 majority. Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, but Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) broke ranks in order to support net neutrality and common carrier regulation of broadband providers.

Lobby groups representing all the major cable companies, telecoms, and mobile carriers urged senators to reject the attempt to restore net neutrality rules.

The lobby groups complained that net neutrality rules don't apply to "the practices of edge providers, such as search engines and social media platforms." That's no surprise, because the FCC regulates telecommunications networks and net neutrality rules apply specifically to broadband networks—websites and online services are regulated separately by the Federal Trade Commission.

Large majorities of both Democratic and Republican voters support net neutrality, Markey noted. Thousands of small businesses wrote to Congress in support of net neutrality, and "millions of Americans sent letters, posted tweets, and made calls defending net neutrality," he said.

The FCC's anti-net neutrality vote "neglected the will of everyday Americans and gave a gift to the rich and powerful," providing ISPs with "new tools to inflate profits" at the expense of Internet users and small businesses, Markey said.

FCC is a “puppet for giant Internet providers”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tore into the Trump administration and FCC, saying the commission "has become a puppet for giant Internet providers."

Warren continued:

The FCC's current chairman, Ajit Pai, has made it clear that he will work to put special interests over what's good for the American people. The FCC was once an agency dedicated to protecting and promoting the public interest, but it has morphed into an agency that exists solely to do the bidding of giant telecom companies. It is a disgrace.

When Pai unveiled his "plan to destroy net neutrality, he made it clear that he would ignore the views of millions of Americans who weighed in to urge him to abandon that plan," Warren said.

“Restoring Internet Freedom”

Pai criticized the vote today, saying, “It’s disappointing that Senate Democrats forced this resolution through by a narrow margin. But ultimately, I'm confident that their effort to reinstate heavy-handed government regulation of the Internet will fail."

Pai's order that eliminates net neutrality rules was titled "Restoring Internet Freedom." Today, Pai said that the Internet "will continue to be free and open once the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect on June 11."

Internet providers claim that net neutrality rules harm network investment, but in reality, ISPs like Comcast raised their capital investment while the rules were in place, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said. "The notion that they are somehow going to slow down investment is just not true," she said.

Further Reading

"The cable industry ranks at the very bottom of 43 industries in consumer satisfaction," Cantwell also said, arguing that Internet users need protection from the companies' anti-consumer practices.

Repealing net neutrality would create "toll booths all over the Internet," and "those higher costs would, in one way or another, come out of your pocket," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.

Republicans want weaker net neutrality law

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said that all senators want to prevent blocking and throttling, and he argued that Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to protect net neutrality. But Wicker did not say whether he wants a ban on paid prioritization, which would let ISPs charge websites and online services for better access to Internet users than online services that don't pay such fees.

"Today, some in Congress are trying to give the government more control again, applying utility-style regulations that would threaten the Internet as we know it," Wicker said.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

Getty Images | Joe Raedle

US Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) criticized Democrats for trying to maintain "partisan, onerous, and heavy-handed regulations on the Internet."

By way of example, Thune criticized the Obama-era FCC for trying to stop certain zero-rating plans. The FCC determined in January 2017 that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality by letting their own video services stream on their mobile networks without counting against customers' data caps, while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions. Pai reversed that decision.

"Net neutrality isn't about regulating mobile phone plan offerings to meet a government Internet standard," Thune said. "But the Markey resolution would restore rules that the Obama Federal Communications Commission used to scrutinize such popular and affordable plans."

Thune noted that in 2015, he proposed legislation that would have prohibited blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Democrats "reached the cynical conclusion that exploiting concern about the Internet outweighed the value of working with Republicans to pass net neutrality protections," Thune said.

Thune's proposal would also forbid the FCC from regulating Internet service providers as common carriers. Common carrier regulation can go beyond net neutrality by letting the FCC protect consumers from unjust or unreasonable rates and practices in general.

Though Thune supports a ban on paid prioritization, there are Republicans who want to let ISPs charge for fast lanes. Thune acknowledged that his proposal "did not anticipate all of the concerns that my colleagues raised and, of course, there is always room for compromise."

Competition keeps ISPs in check, GOP senator claims

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) repeated the telecom industry talking point that ISPs shouldn't face different rules than websites.

"What we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies, the Googles and Facebooks and Netflix, get to tell a different set of companies, the fiber, how they do their business," Lankford said. "Neither do we want the fiber companies telling the content companies how to run their business. Let them compete."

Lankford also claimed that the broadband industry is awash in competition.

"A lot of people say there [are] only a few Internet service providers that are out there," he said. "Well, in the United States, there are 4,500 Internet service providers that are out there."

But except for satellite services with poor latency and a few large mobile providers, those broadband networks don't serve the whole country. Internet users generally have just one or two options for high-speed Internet service at their homes, as FCC data shows.

Despite that reality, Lankford argued that the small ISPs will keep the big ones in check. "Yes, there are some big [ISPs], but there are a lot of small ones, and if the big ones misbehave, guess what happens: competition will beat them down and those small companies will beat them," Lankford said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) argued that customers frustrated by network limitations won't be able to easily switch ISPs because there's so little competition. "Competition does not exist—this is not a matter of competition, this is a matter of preventing discrimination," he said.

Promoted Comments

What we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies, the Googles and Facebooks and Netflix, get to tell a different set of companies, the fiber, how they do their business

Yeah, we don't want that. Good thing the net neutrality rules that were put in place don't do that.

Quote:

Neither do we want the fiber companies telling the content companies how to run their business. Let them compete.

No, you pretty clearly do want that, else you wouldn't be pushing to eliminate rules that prevent it.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said that all senators want to prevent blocking and throttling, and argued that Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to protect net neutrality. But Wicker did not say whether he wants a ban on paid prioritization, which would let ISPs charge websites and online services for better access to Internet users than online services that don't pay such fees.

Paid prioritization is merely a euphemism for throttling. How stupid do they think we are?

What we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies, the Googles and Facebooks and Netflix, get to tell a different set of companies, the fiber, how they do their business

Yeah, we don't want that. Good thing the net neutrality rules that were put in place don't do that.

Quote:

Neither do we want the fiber companies telling the content companies how to run their business. Let them compete.

No, you pretty clearly do want that, else you wouldn't be pushing to eliminate rules that prevent it.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said that all senators want to prevent blocking and throttling, and argued that Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to protect net neutrality. But Wicker did not say whether he wants a ban on paid prioritization, which would let ISPs charge websites and online services for better access to Internet users than online services that don't pay such fees.

Paid prioritization is merely a euphemism for throttling. How stupid do they think we are?

But the chances of it going through the House is not in our favor, especially since some of the R congresscritters have gerrymandered their area to hell.

Hell the chance of it even having a vote in the House is essentially nill. I would be thankful for Republicans having to vote to kill it because that would at least put them on the record but that probably won't happen.

Paid prioritization is merely a euphemism for throttling. How stupid do they think we are?

It's not that they think we're stupid—it's that they don't care.

Very few lawmakers have any concept of what NN is and how the particulars play out. They simply know that the companies and lobbyists who pay for their re-election campaigns don't like it. Actually understanding the issue takes time and effort that they don't care to commit.

From the perspective of Comcast or AT&T or any other potential NN target, the regulations are onerous because they potentially interfere with the short-term goals of beating the quarterly guidance.

I mean, honestly, that's mostly it. It's not that these companies have some kind of grand nefarious plan to subvert the will of the people or whatever. It's just basically a bunch of CxOs on short-to-medium tenures who are doing what they think they have to do to continue to drive the stock price up so that they can get paid and eventually bail out on multi-million dollar cash+stock parachutes.

It's not necessarily a coordinated mustache-twirling evil. They just don't care about anything other than getting theirs.

I want to see this brought up in the house for a vote and want these morons on record as voting 'no'.

I don't think there is a realistic chance of this passing in the House. These 'no' votes should be used against them in the mid-term elections.

Unfortunately, the "useful" stooge Paul Ryan will probably not bring it up ...

I'm not sure Paul Ryan has the right to refuse a CRA vote once the Senate's approved it. Trump can veto it on the (VERY) outside chance that it makes it all the way through, though.

He does and he will. Sadly nothing in the CRA mandates it must be taken up by the House. There are 3 prior CRAs passed by the Senate that the House simply refused to act upon.

Well, that sucks.

Ah... but there are elections coming, which means the Democrats will want to take this up. And the point is to force a vote close to the elections, so that politicians have some fodder to use.

About the only other response to this would be the Republicans in congress responding with a bill that implements a broken version of net neutrality prior to June 11, so they can argue the CRA isn't needed.

But the chances of it going through the House is not in our favor, especially since some of the R congresscritters have gerrymandered their area to hell.

Hell the chance of it even having a vote in the House is essentially nil. I would be thankful for Republicans having to vote to kill it because that would at least put them on the record but that probably won't happen.

Yeah, that would be nice to have it on the record, but we all know this batch of Republicans are spineless cowards. But since this is a CRA vote, can Ryan just not put it to the floor?

I am currently with Cox for my internet service and was paying a "promotional" rate for the last 12 months of $60 for 150Mbps internet. When the promotional period ended last month my bill went up to $90.

I called Cox to see if I could negotiate something a bit more palatable and was offered the option to pay slightly more for a higher package or downgrade to 100Mbps to keep the same $60 rate I had been paying previously. When I requested to cancel my service, he put me on hold for a bit, then came back on the line and let me know that he checked my address and my only alternative was AT&T DSL, offering a speed of 2Mbps.

That, my friends, is the chutzpah we're dealing with. But we're supposed to trust that they will not do more harm with less regulation.

From the perspective of Comcast or AT&T or any other potential NN target, the regulations are onerous because they potentially interfere with the short-term goals of beating the quarterly guidance.

I mean, honestly, that's mostly it. It's not that these companies have some kind of grand nefarious plan to subvert the will of the people or whatever. It's just basically a bunch of CxOs on short-to-medium tenures who are doing what they think they have to do to continue to drive the stock price up so that they can get paid and eventually bail out on multi-million dollar cash+stock parachutes.

It's not necessarily a coordinated mustache-twirling evil. They just don't care about anything other than getting theirs.

If you think the telcos have no "grand nefarious" anti-consumer plan, you're just not paying attention, my friend.

Headline, April 21: "AT&T and Verizon are again being investigated for collusion. Here’s what happened the first time"

But the chances of it going through the House is not in our favor, especially since some of the R congresscritters have gerrymandered their area to hell.

Hell the chance of it even having a vote in the House is essentially nil. I would be thankful for Republicans having to vote to kill it because that would at least put them on the record but that probably won't happen.

Yeah, that would be nice to have it on the record, but we all know this batch of Republicans are spineless cowards. But since this is a CRA vote, can Ryan just not put it to the floor?

I'm not versed in House parliamentarian procedures, so I'm not entirely sure. If Paul Ryan can block, he will block it. He's going to protect members of his party the same way he has by not bringing immigration legislation to the floor.

But the chances of it going through the House is not in our favor, especially since some of the R congresscritters have gerrymandered their area to hell.

Hell the chance of it even having a vote in the House is essentially nil. I would be thankful for Republicans having to vote to kill it because that would at least put them on the record but that probably won't happen.

Yeah, that would be nice to have it on the record, but we all know this batch of Republicans are spineless cowards. But since this is a CRA vote, can Ryan just not put it to the floor?

Unfortunately my understanding is yes. The legislation that created the CRA put in "streamlined senate rules" to prevent filibustering or delay but no such language was included for the House. I would assume that is because of the only a simple majority is needed in the House.

There are three previous CRAs passed by the Senate in which the House took no action so it would seem Ryan does have the power to prevent a vote from being called.

Also informally the Republicans have a "rule" which the speaker promises to follow as a condition of his speakership which ensures no legislation will ever get and up or down vote in the House unless a majority of Republicans support it. So even if say 100 Republicans and 200 Democrats supported this (enough to pass) Ryan following the Hastert Rule would ensure the vote never happens.

"Today, some in Congress are trying to give the government more control again, applying utility-style regulations that would threaten the Internet as we know it," Wicker said.

Er, the internet as I know it has Net Neutrality legislation that doesn't expire until June 11.

So how exactly is keeping this legislation in place, legislation that has already been shown to improve network access while not harming ISPs, supposed to threaten anything?

It's not legislation. If it was then the FCC would be pretty powerless to get rid of it. The Open Internet Order was just FCC rules. Those can be implemented and rolled back at will provided the Commissioners vote to implement or roll back those rules following usual procedure.

But to answer your question, it threatens the ISPs ability to gouge money out of both site operators and their captive customers, so it has to go.

[quote="[url=https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=35342213#p35342213]We need an ISP to go to a website at all. And on top of that, we can't choose our ISP.

Does he think we're stupid?[/quote]

Answer: Yes he does! In fact his whole case is predicated upon that belief. Sadly he is substantially correct (present company excepted of course) Most people will just not want to get it until they are being raped and told... Oh Well... You had your chance"

But the chances of it going through the House is not in our favor, especially since some of the R congresscritters have gerrymandered their area to hell.

Hell the chance of it even having a vote in the House is essentially nil. I would be thankful for Republicans having to vote to kill it because that would at least put them on the record but that probably won't happen.

Yeah, that would be nice to have it on the record, but we all know this batch of Republicans are spineless cowards. But since this is a CRA vote, can Ryan just not put it to the floor?

Unfortunately my understanding is yes. The legislation that created the CRA put in "streamlined senate rules" to prevent filibustering or delay but no such language was included for the House. I would assume that is because of the only a simple majority is needed in the House.

There are three CRAs passed by the Senate in which the House took no action so it would seem Ryan does have the power to prevent a vote from being called.

Also informally the Republicans have a "rule" which the speaker promises to follow which ensures no legislation will ever get and up or down vote in the House unless a majority of Republicans support it. So even if say 100 Republicans and 200 Democrats supported this (enough to pass) Ryan following the Hastert Rule would ensure the vote never happens.

The Hastert Rule is one of the reasons why this country is so fucked up. It's entirely anti-democratic.

The Speaker of the House wouldn't be able to do that in a normal functioning democracy because representatives would hold him accountable and remove him from power. Unfortunately it's party politics above anything else.